JUDGMENT 1. - None appears for Mr. Yogesh Kalla, applicant, though name of Mr. B.V. Thanvi, Advocate is shown in the cause list in his behalf. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-applicant against the order dtd 6.4.2009 passed by the Rent Tribunal, jodhpur in Petition No. 227 of 2009, Yogesh Kalla v. Bhup Singh & Ors. , whereby the application filed by the petitioner tinder Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was rejected. 3. The petitioner Bhup Singh S/o Sh. Mani Ram had purchased a building known as Gopi Krishna Hotel and Annpurna Restaurant, situated at Sojati Gate from Rajasthan Financial Corporation under Section 29 of the State Finance Corporation Act, 1951 in an auction held by the RFC upon default in payment of loan by respondent No. 3-Gopit Kishan Purohit, who was earlier the owner of the DNJ . Pg. 172 . 25 6.2013 said property, but upon default in payment of loan, the possession was taken over by the RFC and sold in open auction in favour of auction purchaser, the present writ petitioner Bhup Singh. These facts being not in dispute when the respondent No. 2 Yogesh Kalla-applicant-tenant approached the Rent Tribunal by way of Petition No. 227/2008 seeking injunction against the purchaser-owner of the property, Sh. Bhup Singh that he may not be dispossessed from the portion of said building in which he claimed that he was tenant of original owner Sh. Gopi Kishan Purohit in rooms No. 17, 18 and 19 of the said hotel building in which he was running his business of "Vishal Shorthand Coaching Centre" and therefore, he may not be dispossessed by the purchaser of property Bhup Singh without adopting the due process of law for eviction. 4. The defendant-non-applicant-purchaser of property Sh. Gopi Kishan Purohit in rooms No. 17, 18 and 19 of the said hotel building in which he was running his business of "Vishal Shorthand Coaching Centre" and therefore, he may not be dispossessed by the purchaser of property Bhup Singh without adopting the due process of law for eviction. 4. The defendant-non-applicant-purchaser of property Sh. Bhup Singh filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C., before the Rent Tribunal claiming that the said hotel building in which hotel was running and which upon default in repayment of loan by the owner (Gopi Kishan Purohit) against RFC, the same was sold in auction to the present petitioner, was not even covered by the definition of "Premises" as defined in Section 2(f) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, such hotel building being specifically excluded from the said definition of "premises", the Rent Control Act, 2001 did not apply to the facts of the present case, no such suit could be filed and maintained before the Rent Tribunal by the applicant Yogesh Kalla under the said Rent Control Act, 2001. 5. By the impugned order dated 6.4.2009, the learned Rent Tribunal has rejected the said application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and has held the suit maintainable before it. Aggrieved by the same, the purchaser owner of the property Bhup Singh has approached this Court by way of present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nitish Bagri for Mr. Sajjan Singh submitted that in view of clear exclusion of hotel buildings from the definition of "premises" as defined in Section 2(f)(iv) of the Act, the injunction suit filed by Yogesh Kalla was not maintainable and therefore, the Rent Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and entertaining such injunction suit. 7. None has appeared on behalf of the applicant Yogesh Kalla despite service though the name of Mr. B.V. Thanvi, Advocate has appeared in the cause list. 8. Mr. Arpit Bhoot, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Mr. Gopi Kishan Purohit does not dispute the fact that the said building was sold in open auction under Section 29 of the SFC Act and he is representing the earlier owner Sh. Gopi Kishan Purohit only and not Yogesh Kalla. 9. 8. Mr. Arpit Bhoot, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Mr. Gopi Kishan Purohit does not dispute the fact that the said building was sold in open auction under Section 29 of the SFC Act and he is representing the earlier owner Sh. Gopi Kishan Purohit only and not Yogesh Kalla. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Nitish Bagri, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Rent Tribunal has fallen into error of law in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., in the present case. The said building known as Annpurna Restaurant and Gopikrishna Hotel was set up as hotel and in a part of which, a restaurant was also being run and for which loans were taken from the RFC and upon defaults committed by the erstwhile owner Gopi Kishan Purohit, the said building was taken over in a statutory power under Section 29 of the SFC Act and same was put to public auction in which the present petitioner Bhup Singh purchased the same. The applicant Yogesh Kalla was in occupation of some of the rooms No. 17, 18 and 19 to run his Vishal Shorthand Coaching Centre. The applicant approached the Rent Tribunal seeking injunction, on the apprehension that purchaser Bhup Singh may proceed against him against for dispossession and eviction from the said hotel rooms. 10. The applicant Yogesh Kalla was in occupation of some of the rooms No. 17, 18 and 19 to run his Vishal Shorthand Coaching Centre. The applicant approached the Rent Tribunal seeking injunction, on the apprehension that purchaser Bhup Singh may proceed against him against for dispossession and eviction from the said hotel rooms. 10. The definition of word "premises" to which Rent Control Act, 2001 is produced below: "Premises" means (a) any land not being used for agricultural purposes; and (b) any building or part of a building (other than a farm building) let or intended to be let for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose, including (i) the gardens, grounds, godowns, garages and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to such building or part, (ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or part, (iii) any fittings affixed to, and amenities provided in, such building or part for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof, and (iv) any land appurtenant to and let with any such building or part, but does not include a room or other accommodation in a hotel, dharmshala, inn, sarai, lodging house, boarding house or hostel; Explanation.-In absence of a contract to the contrary, the top of the roof shall not form part of the premises let out to a tenant." 11. It means any land appurtenant to and let with not being used for agricultural purposes and any building or part of a building other than a farm building let or intended to be let for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purposes, but does not include a room or other accommodation in a hotel, dharmshala, inn, sarai, lodging house, boarding house or hostel. Thus, room or any part of accommodation in hotel building is not included in the definition of "premises" which is the subject matter of Rent Control Act, 2001. In view of this clear definition, there was no occasion for the said applicant- respondent to have approached the Rent Tribunal, jodhpur for seeking injunction. The application filed by the petitioner Bhup Singh under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was perfectly justified and the suit of Yogesh Kalla deserved to be dismissed at threshold in view of definition of "premises" viz. rooms No. 17, 18 and 19. 12. The application filed by the petitioner Bhup Singh under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was perfectly justified and the suit of Yogesh Kalla deserved to be dismissed at threshold in view of definition of "premises" viz. rooms No. 17, 18 and 19. 12. Accordingly, the present writ petition of the purchaser owner Bhup Singh is allowed. The impugned order dated 6.4.2009 of the Rent Tribunal, jodhpur is set aside and the Suit Application No. 227 of 2008, Yogesh Kalla v. Bhup Singh , is dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the learned Rent Tribunal forthwith.Petition allowed. *******